Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
JAMES GRIFFIN
Plaintiff,
AMENDED COMPLAINT
-against-
Case No.: 10-CV-01824

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
JOSEPH REZNICK, individually,
SEAN CROWLEY, individually,
MICHALE MILTENBERG, individually and
ANTHONY CARDINALE, individually,

Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, JAMES GRIFFIN, by and through his attorneys, The Law Office of

BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., complaining of the Defendants, alleges upon

knowledge as to himself and his own actions and upon information and belief as to all other

matters, as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil action based upon the Defendants’ violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983

& 1985 (vis-à-vis violations of The First Amendment Right to Free Speech and the

Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (substantive and procedural due process

denied)); New York Civil Service Law Section 75(b); and intentional infliction of

emotional distress.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C.

1343. The supplemental jurisdiction of the Court (28 U.S.C. §1367) is invoked over

all state and local law causes of action.

Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 27

3. Venue is appropriate in this court as all actions comprising the claims for relief

occurred within this judicial district and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because one (1)

or more of the defendants resides within this judicial district.

PARTIES

4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff James Griffin (“Griffin” or “Plaintiff”),

was and is a resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York.

5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant New York City (“City”) was and still is

a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

New York.

6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant the New York City Police Department

(“NYPD”) was and still is an agent or entity of Defendant City with its principal

place of business located at One Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038.

7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Joseph Reznick (“Reznick”) was the

Commanding Officer of the Cold Case Squad of Defendant NYPD

8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sean Crowley (“Crowley”) was Captain of

The Cold Case Squad of Defendant NYPD, and reported directly to and took orders

directly from Defendant Reznick.

9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Michael Miltenberg was the Commanding

Officer of the 105th Precinct Detective Squad of Defendant NYPD.

10. At all time relevant hereto, Defendant Anthony Cardinale was a Detective of

Defendant NYPD, assigned to the Organized Crime Control Bureau, Brooklyn

Narcotics District, as well as an elected official of the Detectives Endowment

Association (“DEA”), serving as the Welfare Officer of Brooklyn North.

2
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 28

BACKGROUND FACTS

11. While acting under color of law and by way of authority and power granted to them

by the City, the Defendants, their agents, officers, servants and/or employees,

engaged in unlawful conduct by retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising his First

Amendment right to free speech and denying him procedural due process by such

measures as: (a) creating a hostile work environment; (b) engaging in reckless,

intentionally damaging behavior, stigmatizing Plaintiff from his coworkers; (c)

denying Plaintiff the right to take and be compensated in cash for overtime while

granting that right to other identically-situated employees; (d) denying Plaintiff the

right to attend relevant training courses in advancement of his career while granting

that right to other identically-situated employees; (e) assigning Plaintiff a

disproportionately greater number of assignments and more difficult assignments than

any of his coworkers, while also interfering with Plaintiff’s work to the extent that it

was impossible for Plaintiff to complete his assignments; and (g) eventually

constructively discharging Plaintiff’s employment at NYPD without providing the

process due to Plaintiff under law.

12. The unlawful, harassing and retaliatory behavior on which this action is based

commenced in or about December 2005, and was constant, persistent, pervasive and

continuing in nature, up until on or around July 25, 2009, the date on which Plaintiff

was constructively terminated.

13. Plaintiff is a 48 year-old male.

14. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant NYPD, on or around July 25, 1983, at the entry-

level position of “Probationary Police Officer.” Through dedication, hard work, and

3
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 29

innate skill, in October 2005, Plaintiff was promoted to “Detective First Grade” in the

83rd Precinct Detective Squad, and placed on the “C Team” of detectives.

15. Prior to the events detailed below beginning in or around November 2005, Plaintiff

had always received favorable employment evaluations, nothing but praise from his

colleagues and supervisors, and numerous citations and awards for his performance.

16. On or around October 22, 2005, Michael O’Keefe (“O’Keefe”), a colleague of

Plaintiff’s who also held the rank of Detective First Grade, was assigned the

responsibility of conducting a witness interview of the victim of a stabbing incident,

in which the witness that O’Keefe was required to interview, the victim Marcelo

Lopez (“Lopez”), had been stabbed and taken to Elmhurst Hospital.

17. Upon being assigned to interview Lopez, O’Keefe called Elmhurst Hospital in an

effort to determine what the best time would be to speak with Lopez. A nurse

informed O’Keefe that Lopez had just returned from surgery, was incapacitated, and

would not be able to speak to anyone until the following day. Despite Lopez’s

incapacitation, standard NYPD procedure required O’Keefe to go to Elmhurst

anyway, in order to interview the nurses and doctors who had examined and operated

on Lopez, search for witnesses, and view cameras.

18. O’Keefe, whose shift was about to end, did not go to the hospital to interview Lopez

or the doctors and nurses. Instead, O’Keefe intended to inform one of the 83

detectives whose shifts would be beginning after O’Keefe’s ended that one of them

needed to respond to the hospital to interview Lopez after he recovered from surgery.

19. Prior to concluding his shift, O’Keefe forgot to notify any of the detectives on the

succeeding shift that one of them needed to interview Lopez and never made any

4
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 30

additional attempt himself to interview Lopez. Lopez died shortly thereafter, without

anyone from NYPD interviewing him.

20. Subsequent to the aforementioned incident, the NYPD Chief of Detectives,

Investigation Unit scheduled a hearing in order to investigate O’Keefe’s conduct, and

to determine whether or not O’Keefe should be subject to formal discipline for his

failure to interview Lopez.

21. Prior to that hearing taking place, on or around November 10, 2005, Plaintiff was

riding in a patrol car with Detective Robert Wagner (“Wagner”), when Plaintiff

received a call on his personal cell phone from Detective Kevin McCarthy

(“McCarthy”). McCarthy was a Detective Third Grade, and was thus inferior in rank

to Plaintiff, who was a Detective First Grade. McCarthy had a terrible penchant for

speaking derogatively and insultingly about other detectives, and as McCarthy’s

superior, Plaintiff often reprimanded McCarthy for not being respectful to his

colleagues. McCarthy also held an elected position within the Detective Endowment

Association (“DEA”), the detectives union of which Plaintiff was a member, and due

to McCarthy’s negative behavior towards his colleagues, Plaintiff encouraged other

detectives to challenge McCarthy for his elected seat. Thus, Plaintiff and McCarthy

had a negative history, and the two did not get along.

22. On that November 10, 2005 phone conversation, as a result of the just described

negative history between McCarthy and Plaintiff, and despite Plaintiff’s superior

rank, McCarthy informed Plaintiff that McCarthy wanted Plaintiff, and not O’Keefe,

to be disciplined for O’Keefe’s failures regarding the October 22, 2005 incident.

Thus, McCarthy instructed Plaintiff to contact the Chief of Detectives Investigation

5
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 31

Unit and lie to the investigators by accepting blame for the entire incident, by telling

the investigators that it was Plaintiff, and not O’Keefe, who had accepted

responsibility for the case, and who was thus responsible for failing to conduct the

interview of Lopez, as well as the relevant doctors and nurses. When Plaintiff

responded that he would not take responsibility for something that was not his fault,

McCarthy threatened that if Plaintiff would not lie to the investigators and accept

responsibility, then McCarthy, as well as various other detectives, would lie to the

investigators by telling them that it was Plaintiff who was responsible.

23. After that conversation was finished, Wagner, who was present in the car with

Plaintiff and who had heard Plaintiff’s side of the conversation with McCarthy, asked

Plaintiff to detail the entire conversation. Plaintiff shared the contents of the entire

conversation with Wagner, after which Wagner and Plaintiff conversed about the

conversation, with Wagner admitting his disgust with McCarthy’s request/threat.

24. At that moment, Plaintiff was so disgusted by McCarthy’s willingness to interfere

with an NYPD investigation by lying that, as a citizen concerned about a public

matter, he decided to bring McCarthy’s conduct to the investigating unit’s attention,

despite the fact that he had no obligation to do so.

25. However, on or around November 16, 2005, after no one from the Chief of

Detectives, Investigation Unit, had contacted Plaintiff regarding O’Keefe’s

investigation, Plaintiff, who still wanted McCarthy’s conduct brought to light, acting

as a concerned citizen on a matter of public concern, exercised his 1st Amendment

rights by contacting the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau to report the fact that

McCarthy had instructed Plaintiff to lie during an official investigation, and had then

6
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 32

threatened that he and unknown others would lie to the investigators themselves if

Plaintiff failed to do so.

26. On or around December 7, 2005, Plaintiff was approached by Detective Joyce

Mariner, who advised that all of Plaintiff’s colleagues in the 83rd Precinct were

discussing the rumor that someone had reported McCarthy to Internal Affairs.

Plaintiff immediately responded to Mariner that it was true, and that it was Plaintiff

who had contacted Internal Affairs because he was outraged by McCarthy’s conduct.

27. On or around December 8, 2005, Wagner called Plaintiff. Wagner informed Plaintiff

that over the past 24 hours, Wagner had received calls from police officers all over

inquiring as to whether Plaintiff had contacted Internal Affairs regarding McCarthy.

Plaintiff informed Wagner that he had contacted Internal Affairs. Wagner replied that

although McCarthy’s conduct had been wrong, Plaintiff was wrong to contact Internal

Affairs, and that Wagner could not “defend [Plaintiff] in any way now.”

28. From December 8, 2005, and lasting until Plaintiff’s constructive termination almost

four (4) years later, as explained thoroughly by, but not limited to, the events detailed

and described in the succeeding paragraphs of this Complaint, the Defendants

continuously, thoroughly, severely, and repeatedly retaliated against Plaintiff for

Plaintiff having exercised his constitutionally protected right of free speech.

29. On or around December 9, 2005, Plaintiff arrived at work to find the word “RAT”

written largely across Plaintiff’s locker in permanent magic marker.

30. On or around that same date, December 9, 2005, Plaintiff entered the precinct

dormitory to find the mattress that he was known to frequently use, otherwise known

as “his mattress,” flipped over and vandalized.

7
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 33

31. On or around that same date, December 9, 2005, Detective Rosario Rizzo, while

angrily pacing back and forth in the office in front of many of Plaintiff’s colleagues at

the 83rd Precinct, stated several times to Plaintiff that he could not believe that

Plaintiff was a rat. Rizzo also repeatedly called Plaintiff a coward, and then quickly

approached Plaintiff in an aggressive manner as if he were about to physically assault

Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s colleagues were forced to quickly intervene by pulling Rizzo

away from Plaintiff, at which point Rizzo stated that he would “clock [Plaintiff’s]

whistle.” One of the unit’s supervisors, Sergeant Steven Sauer, witnessed the entire

incident, however he did nothing to subdue Rizzo or remove Rizzo from Plaintiff’s

vicinity after Rizzo had attempted to assault Plaintiff. Rizzo then threatened that he

was going to write that “[Plaintiff] is a rat” on every chalkboard in the building.

32. The next day, on or around December 10, 2005, none of Plaintiff’s colleagues at the

83rd Precinct would either speak to Plaintiff or make eye contact with him, and all of

them made it patently obvious that they were ignoring Plaintiff. Additionally, in

conjunction with all of Plaintiff’s colleagues ignoring him, one of Plaintiff’s

colleagues with whom Plaintiff had frequently worked, David Milani (“Milani”),

refused to leave the office with him in order to conduct investigations for active cases

on which Plaintiff had been assigned, and on which Milani’s cooperation was needed.

Pursuant to NYPD procedure, all investigations must be conducted with at least two

(2) detectives. Plaintiff informed his supervisor, Lieutenant John Tenant (“Tenant”),

about Milani’s refusal to conduct investigations with him, in the hopes that Tenant

would remedy the situation by either assigning another detective to work with

Plaintiff, or by ordering Milani to work with Plaintiff. Tenant, however, did nothing

8
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 34

to fix the situation. Thus, as a result of Milani’s refusal to conduct investigations

with Plaintiff and as a result of Tenant’s refusal to remedy that problem, Plaintiff was

prevented from conducting investigations, an extremely essential function of his job.

33. On or around that same date, December 10, 2005, Milani dissuaded Plaintiff from

attending the 83rd Precinct office Christmas Party. Plaintiff had already purchased a

ticket to this event, so Milani refunded Plaintiff’s money.

34. On or around December 24, 2005, Plaintiff’s mother passed away. In breaking with

tradition at the 83rd Precinct, none of Plaintiff’s colleagues sent flowers to the wake,

and very few of them bothered to attend. In fact, Defendant Cardinale informed

Plaintiff that he did not personally attend the wake solely due to Plaintiff having

called Internal Affairs.

35. Throughout the month of December 2005, Internal Affairs conducted its investigation

into Plaintiff’s allegations against McCarthy. All of the material witnesses failed to

cooperate with the investigation by being less than truthful. For example, when asked

to corroborate Plaintiff’s aforementioned conversation with McCarthy that occurred

on October 22, 2005 while Wagner was in the car sitting right next to Plaintiff, and

the details of which Plaintiff and Wagner had discussed immediately after Plaintiff

got off the phone with McCarthy, Wagner told the investigators that he “did not recall

any specific statements made by [Plaintiff] and did not hear any statements made by

Detective McCarthy.” Moreover, McCarthy himself lied to the investigators by

stating that the reason he had called Plaintiff was to “confer with [Plaintiff] about the

case” and that he never instructed Plaintiff to lie. McCarthy’s assertion, however, is

belied by the fact that Plaintiff and McCarthy had never worked on that case together

9
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 35

and thus had no reason to “confer” about it. As a result, the allegations made by

Plaintiff against McCarthy were dismissed as unsubstantiated.

36. On or around January 7, 2006, two (2) days before Plaintiff was scheduled to return

from his annual vacation that had also been extended by four (4) days of bereavement

leave, Plaintiff received notice from one of his supervisors, Lieutenant Tenant, that

upon his return to work, Plaintiff would be transferred from the “C Team” to the “E

Team.” Tenant explained to Plaintiff that the C Team detectives held a lot of

animosity towards Plaintiff, and that in the department’s opinion, the best solution to

prevent further problems was to uplift Plaintiff and place him on a different team.

37. Upon Plaintiff’s return to work on or around January 9, 2006, Plaintiff observed that

the word “RAT,” which Plaintiff had discovered written largely across his locker an

entire month prior, on December 9, 2005, had not been removed. None of Plaintiff’s

supervisors found the presence of that word on Plaintiff’s locker to be inappropriate,

as none of them made any effort to have the word removed in the entire month since

it had first been written. Moreover, Plaintiff, discovered that the word “RAT” had

also been written across Plaintiff’s locker in multiple additional places.

38. On or around January 10, 2006, Plaintiff again noticed that none of the other

detectives would either speak to Plaintiff or make eye contact with him. Given that it

was necessary for Plaintiff to communicate with his colleagues in order to conduct

investigations, the fact that none of Plaintiff’s colleagues would even speak to him

made it impossible for Plaintiff to conduct investigations and thus satisfactorily do his

job. Plaintiff informed Tenant of this fact, but Tenant did not offer any solution.

10
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 36

39. On or around January 16, 2006, Detective Joseph Tallarine (“Tallarine”) began his

first day of work on the C Team at the 83rd Precinct. Upon seeing Plaintiff for the

first time, Tallarine stated to Plaintiff that although he had heard the story detailed

above, he “was not here for anything that went on,” and would not have a problem

working with Plaintiff in the future. After becoming aware of Tallarine’s willingness

to work with Plaintiff, Tenant moved Plaintiff back to the C Team, and assigned

Plaintiff and Tallarine to work together. Later that same date, Tallarine told Plaintiff

that Tallarine had noticed many of the other C Team members giving Tallarine “dirty

looks” for communicating with Plaintiff and for agreeing to work with him.

40. On or about January 17, 2006, Plaintiff witnessed and overheard a conversation

between Tallarine and Detective Anthony Cardinale (“Cardinale”), who was a Board

Member of the DEA. In this conversation, Plaintiff overheard Cardinale say to

Tallarine that “we want [Plaintiff] to leave, he’s a rat.” Additionally, Cardinale told

Tallarine that “we don’t want you to talk to him, work with him, nothing.” Cardinale

does not work in the same building as the detectives of the 83rd precinct, so it was

obvious to Plaintiff that Cardinale had come to the 83rd Precinct for the sole purpose

of having this conversation with Tallarine.

41. Subsequent to the conversation described in the previous paragraph, Plaintiff

approached Cardinale in an effort to explain to Cardinale Plaintiff’s version of the

events leading up to Plaintiff reporting McCarthy to Internal Affairs. McCarthy, just

like Cardinale, was also Board Member of the DEA, so Plaintiff thought that

Cardinale would be interested in his colleague’s disgraceful conduct. Cardinale

responded by stating that everyone at DEA thought of Plaintiff as a rat, that no one in

11
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 37

the entire NYPD was currently talking to Plaintiff or would ever talk to him again in

the future, that no one could stand to be in the same room as Plaintiff, and that

everyone wanted Plaintiff to just resign from his position with NYPD. Moreover,

Cardinale stated that these events would forever affect Plaintiff’s family. Lastly,

Cardinale advised Plaintiff not to attend the upcoming Detectives Endowment

Association Convention, an event which Plaintiff had attended every year with his

wife and three (3) children.

42. After Cardinale’s conversation with Tallarine, up until on or around March 2, 2006,

Tallarine and Plaintiff continued to work together. However, as a result of

Cardinale’s lecture, Tallarine’s attitude towards Plaintiff became hostile, and the two

generally did not communicate unless it was absolutely necessary.

43. On or around March 2, 2006, Plaintiff was transferred to the Cold Case Squad, and

placed under the command of Defendant Deputy Chief Joseph Reznick. Upon

information and belief, Plaintiff’s former colleagues from the 83rd Precinct made

several phone calls to Plaintiff’s new unit prior to Plaintiff’s arrival there, in which

they informed Plaintiff’s new colleagues that Plaintiff was a “rat,” and advised

Plaintiff’s new colleagues not to work with Plaintiff. For this reason, none of

Plaintiff’s new colleagues, except for Detective Mark Valencia (“Valencia”), would

agree to work with Plaintiff upon his arrival at Cold Case Squad. Furthermore, upon

information and belief, Defendant Reznick, Plaintiff’s new direct supervisor, was also

the recipient of one of these calls, and thus had full knowledge of Plaintiff having

filed the report against McCarthy with Internal Affairs. As a result, as detailed

12
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 38

below, Reznick further retaliated against Plaintiff by exacerbating an already hostile

situation.

44. Immediately upon Plaintiff’s arrival at his new unit, Reznick assigned Plaintiff a

significantly greater number of cases than any other member of that unit.

45. On or around March 12, 2007, Plaintiff asked Reznick for permission to attend a 3

day training course at the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science on Cold Case

Investigations. The training course would have been at no cost to NYPD and was

directly relevant to Plaintiff’s responsibilities at his new unit. Reznick denied

Plaintiff’s request without explanation.

46. On around April 10, 2007, Plaintiff again asked for permission to attend a relevant

training program, this time an FBI-run program on profiling. The course would have

been at no cost to NYPD. However, Reznick once again denied Plaintiff’s request,

and instead chose to send two other detectives and one sergeant to the training course.

47. On or around April 18, 2007, Valencia declared his refusal to work with Plaintiff

because Plaintiff was a “rat.” Valencia also left a note on Plaintiff’s desk in which

Valencia called Plaintiff a “rat.” As a result, Reznick teamed Plaintiff with Detective

Stephen Berger (“Berger”), who worked in a precinct in the Bronx. This meant that

either Plaintiff or Berger would have to commute from the Queens precinct to the

Bronx precinct, or vice-versa, in order for the two to work together. This greatly

complicated Plaintiff’s ability to complete the essential functions of his job.

48. On or around May 2, 2007, at a meeting of the Cold Case Squad, presided over by

Defendant Captain Sean Crowley, and at which all Cold Case Squad members were

present, Crowley stated that Reznick had ordered Crowley not to authorize any cash

13
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 39

overtime for Plaintiff for the month of May 2007. Crowley further stated that

Reznick had ordered Crowley to “shut [Plaintiff] down,” and that Reznick’s

command was highly unusual. Crowley then instructed Plaintiff to “put Crowley in

[this] law suit,” meaning that Crowley was fully aware that the actions being taken

against Plaintiff were illegal.

49. On July 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the DEA concerning Reznick’s

retaliatory actions in refusing to allow Plaintiff to work overtime and be compensated

in cash, while at the same time allowing all other similarly-situated members of

Plaintiff’s unit to work overtime and be compensated in cash. The grievance

contained numerous examples of times that Reznick, as carried out by Crowley,

singled out Plaintiff treating him disparately from his similarly-situated colleagues.

50. One such example occurred in or around early 2007 while Plaintiff was still partnered

with Valencia. At that time, Plaintiff and Valencia were instructed to drive to

Farmingdale, New York to exhume a body from a Long Island cemetery. As Plaintiff

and Valencia’s normal shift was ending, and the two had not completed their task at

the cemetery Valencia called Reznick to request permission to work overtime.

Reznick approved Valencia’s request, but then told Valencia to tell Plaintiff that he

was not approving overtime for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff should return to the command

post immediately, to clock out prior to being due overtime.

51. Another such example occurred on May 3, 2007, when Plaintiff’s partner, Detective

Berger, called Crowley, in Plaintiff’s presence, and asked to be compensated in cash

for overtime that he had worked. Crowley granted Berger’s request. At that time,

Plaintiff asked Berger to make the exact same request for Plaintiff pertaining to the

14
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 40

exact same overtime worked, yet Crowley denied Plaintiff’s request to be

compensated in cash, instead only approving Plaintiff to be compensated in time.

52. Another such example occurred on May 31, 2007, when Crowley approved the

request of Detective Oscar Hernandez to be compensated in cash, yet denied

Plaintiff’s exact same request by only approving compensation in time.

53. Another such example occurred in or around July 2007, when Sergeant H. Scott

Hamilton refused to approve Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement for expenditures

made by Plaintiff during an investigation, and stated that Reznick had ordered

Hamilton not to grant Plaintiff’s request.

54. On or around September 17, 2007, after conducting a review of Plaintiff’s active

caseload, Crowley stated to Plaintiff that whomever had assigned this particular batch

of cases to Plaintiff did not want him to succeed in making arrests as the cases were

all practically unsolvable and designed to waste Plaintiff’s time. Crowley’s

implication was that Reznick, who had assigned Plaintiff this caseload immediately

after Plaintiff had transferred to the Cold Case Squad, had intentionally retaliated

against Plaintiff by assigning him the most difficult cases possible, as opposed to

solvable cases which he assigned to Plaintiff’s similarly-situated colleagues.

55. On or around October 11, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a transfer request to Reznick, in

which Plaintiff officially requested a transfer to the 105th Precinct Detective Squad.

56. On or around October 26, 2007, rather than transfer Plaintiff to the 105th Squad, as

Plaintiff had initially requested, Reznick instead transferred Plaintiff to the 111th

Precinct Detective Squad.

15
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 41

57. Upon reporting for duty at the 111th Squad, Plaintiff informed his new supervisor that

Plaintiff had requested a transfer to the 105th Squad, and that the 105th Squad

remained Plaintiff’s preferred location. Lieutenant Donna Divagno (“Divagno”) of

the 111th Squad then contacted the 105th Squad, determined that there was an opening

and a need for a detective possessing Plaintiff’s credentials at the 105th Squad, and

informed Plaintiff that she would “get the ball rolling” in completing Plaintiff’s

transfer to the 105th Squad. However, prior to “getting the ball rolling,” Divagno

discovered that Reznick had submitted an inter-office memorandum to the Chief of

Detectives, George Brown, in which Reznick ordered that Plaintiff not be granted his

request for a transfer to the 105th Squad. Upon information and belief, Reznick had

no connection to either the 105th or 111th Squads, and thus the unit to which Plaintiff

was transferred should not have mattered to Reznick.

58. On or around November 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the DEA in which

he detailed the information in the previous three (3) paragraphs.

59. In or around March 2008, Plaintiff received in his office mailbox a report filed by a

member of the 83rd Precinct regarding a robbery that had some alleged connection to

the 111th Precinct. Plaintiff’s name was listed in the body of the report, along with

several derogatory remarks about, and threats towards Plaintiff. Over the next several

weeks, Plaintiff received several more of these “complaints,” all mentioning Plaintiff

by name, all containing relatively similar degrading and threatening content, and all

written in unidentifiable block letters. Plaintiff filed a grievance pertaining to these

“reports” with the DEA on March 26, 2008.

60. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was transferred to the 105th Precinct Detective Squad.

16
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 42

61. In or around January 2009, Plaintiff arrived at work at the 105th Precinct to find the

word “RAT” written on the hole puncher that normally sits on Plaintiff’s desk.

62. In or around May 2009, Plaintiff discovered that his locker at the 105th Precinct had

been vandalized, and that pictures had been deleted from Plaintiff’s personal camera.

Plaintiff issued the camera to Internal Affairs so that they might test it for DNA

evidence and/or fingerprints in order to identify who had vandalized Plaintiff’s

locker, but Internal Affairs was unable to determine the culprit’s identity.

63. In or around May 2009, Plaintiff’s new supervisor at the 105th Squad, Lieutenant

Michael Miltenberg (“Miltenberg”), after approving, with great delay, Plaintiff’s

request to work one (1) week of his vacation time, a very standard request that is

approved for other detectives as a matter of course, intentionally failed to submit the

official paperwork approving the vacation time to Timekeeping.

64. Subsequently, on or around July 9, 2009, while on leave, Plaintiff was called by the

Queens County District Attorney’s Office to help review facts from an investigation

that Plaintiff had conducted. In keeping with standard procedure, prior to working

overtime hours, Plaintiff called Detective Borough Queens to request permission to

work the overtime and had his request approved. After working the overtime hours,

Plaintiff submitted his request for cash overtime compensation; however, Miltenberg

made calls to ensure that Plaintiff’s request was pulled and thus not approved.

65. On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the DEA regarding the incidents

described in the previous two paragraphs.

66. In or around July 2009, Miltenberg, at a staff meeting, stared directly at Plaintiff and

stated that “there's a rat in here, not someone who retired or transferred but sitting

17
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 43

right here in this room.” As a direct result of Miltenberg’s actions, all of Plaintiff’s

colleagues refused to work and/or speak to Plaintiff.

67. On or about July 25, 2009, the accumulation of events described in the preceding

paragraphs resulted in Plaintiff being constructively terminated from his employment

at NYPD.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

First Amendment Right to Free Speech

68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same

force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.

69. The aforementioned acts of Defendants in creating a hostile work environment,

stigmatizing Plaintiff from his coworkers, denying Plaintiff the right to overtime

benefits while granting it to other identically-situated employees, denying Plaintiff

the right to attend relevant training courses in advancement of his career while

granting the right to other identically-situated employees, assigning Plaintiff a

disproportionately greater number of and more difficult assignments than any of his

coworkers, yet also interfering with Plaintiff’s work to the extent that it was

impossible for Plaintiff to complete his assignments, and eventually constructively

discharging Plaintiff’s employment at NYPD, and other acts of retaliation described

above, are a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment of the United

States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: 44

70. Plaintiff’s reporting of McCarthy to the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau is speech

protected under the First Amendment as speech by a concerned citizen on a matter of

public concern, as Plaintiff was a concerned citizen at all relevant times mentioned

herein, and as an NYPD Detective counseling another NYPD Detective to lie to

investigators, and then threatening to lie to investigators himself, is undoubtedly a

matter of public concern.

71. Acting under color of law, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s engagement in the

aforementioned protected activity, Defendant Reznick intentionally took the various

adverse employment actions against Plaintiff described above, including thus

influencing Defendant Crowley to take adverse employment actions against Plaintiff.

72. Acting under color of law, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s engagement in the

aforementioned protected activity, Defendants Crowley, Miltenberg, and Cardinale

intentionally took the various adverse employment actions against Plaintiff described

above.

73. Acting under color of law, Defendants NYPD and City knowingly, recklessly, or with

gross negligence failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing

basis Defendants Reznick, Crowley, Miltenberg, and Cardinale in their duties to

refrain from unlawfully and maliciously retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in

constitutionally protected activities.

74. As a result of the concerted, unlawful and malicious conspiracy of all Defendants,

who were acting under color of law, Plaintiff was subjected to various adverse

employment actions as described above in retaliation for his engagement in protected

activities.

19
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: 45

75. As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has

suffered both economic and non-economic damages including mental anguish, public

ridicule, public stigmatization and emotional distress.

AND AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights

76. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same

force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.

77. Defendants, by and through its employees did, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

subject, or cause to be subjected, Plaintiff to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, and shall be liable to Plaintiff.

78. As a result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff was deprived his fundamental liberty and

property rights without due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution.

79. Defendants acted with malice or with reckless indifference toward the Plaintiff's

federally protected rights by harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff after he

exercised said rights.

80. Acting under color of law, Defendants NYPD and City knowingly, recklessly, or with

gross negligence failed to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing

basis Defendants Reznick, Crowley, Miltenber, and Cardinale in their duties to refrain

from unlawfully and maliciously retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in protected

activities.

20
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: 46

81. Defendants Reznick, Crowley, Miltenberg, and Cardinale violated Plaintiff’s

Constitutional rights by denying him substantive due process by engaging in reckless,

intentionally damaging behavior, stigmatizing him, creating a hostile work

environment, denying Plaintiff career advancement and training opportunities,

overtime pay, and vacation leave, and constructively terminating Plaintiff from his

position of employment with NYPD.

82. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights by denying him procedural due

process by engaging in reckless, intentionally damaging behavior and stigmatizing

him and/or providing bias process and forcing his termination.

83. As a result of Defendants aforementioned conduct against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has

suffered both economic and non-economic damages including mental anguish, public

ridicule, public stigmatization and emotional distress.

AND AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDATS

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985

84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same

force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.

85. The aforementioned acts of retaliation described fully above are a violation of

Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

86. Defendants, by and through their employees, acting under color of law as agents of

the City did conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or

defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with

intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his

21
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: 47

property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or

class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.

87. Plaintiff’s speech regarding matters of public concern is protected under the First

Amendment as speech by a public employee on matters of public concern.

88. Acting under color of law, Defendants conspired to continually harass Plaintiff as

described fully above in retaliation for Plaintiff’s engagement in the aforementioned

protected activity, and took adverse employment actions, as described fully above,

against Plaintiff.

89. As a result of Defendants aforementioned conduct against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has

suffered both economic and non-economic damages including mental anguish, public

ridicule, public stigmatization and emotional distress.

AND AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

Violation of NY Civil Service Law § 75(b)

90. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above

with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.

91. Defendants did take disciplinary and/or other adverse personnel action against

Plaintiff, a public employee.

92. Plaintiff did disclose to a governmental body information regarding a violation of a

law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and

specific danger to the public health or safety.

93. Plaintiff did disclose to a governmental body information the employee reasonably

believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental

action.

22
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: 48

94. Defendants did dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action

against Plainitff, a public employee, regarding his employment, because of these

disclosures.

95. Prior to disclosing this information, Plaintiff did make a good faith effort to provide

the appointing authority or his or her designee the information to be disclosed and

provided the appointing authority or designee a reasonable time to take appropriate

action.

96. As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned conduct against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has

suffered both economic and non-economic damages including mental anguish, public

ridicule, public stigmatization and emotional distress.

AND AS FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANTS REZNICK, CROWLEY, MILTENBERG, and CARDINALE

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

97. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above

with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.

98. Defendants Reznick, Crowley, Miltenberg, and Cardinale, by their actions described

herein, exhibited extreme and outrageous conduct towards Plaintiff.

99. In undertaking the aforementioned actions, Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff severe

emotional distress.

100. The aforementioned conduct of Defendants has caused Plaintiff severe emotional

distress and mental anguish.

101. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff has in the past and

will in the future suffer damages.

23
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 49

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

102. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues and claims in this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. Preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants and their officers, owners,

agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with

them, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages set forth

herein;

2. A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in

violation of the aforementioned laws protected by the United States Constitution as well as New

York State .

3. Reinstatement and/or advancement for Plaintiff who have lost positions as a result of

the Defendants illegal conduct;

4. Granting an order restraining Defendants from any retaliation against any Plaintiff for

participation in any form in this litigation;

5. All damages which Plaintiff has sustained as a result of Defendants’ conduct, including

back pay, front pay, general and special damages for lost compensation and job benefits they

would have received but for Defendants’ conduct, and for emotional distress, humiliation,

embarrassment, foreclosure of liberty and anguish;

6. Front pay to Plaintiff until such time as he can be placed in the same position he would

now have occupied but for Defendants’ discriminatory practices;

7. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendants’ ability

and so as to deter future malicious, reckless and/or intentional conduct;

24
Case 1:10-cv-02592-RJD-MDG Document 3 Filed 04/02/10 Page 25 of 25 PageID #: 50

8. Awarding Plaintiff costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,

including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs;

9. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

10. Granting Plaintiff other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper.

Dated: Carle Place, New York

March 31, 2010
Respectfully submitted,

Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, New York 11514
(516) 248-5550 (Phone)

_________/s/____________________
MICHAEL J. BORRELLI (MB-8533)

25